Create A Manual Hold For A Given Invoice

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate mutability but no destructiveness. The description adds the HTTP method and success response (201, returns created object), which is helpful. However, it does not explain idempotency or behavior on duplicate requests, and the erroneous 'create a new Invoices' text reduces trust.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively short but contains redundant and erroneous statements ('Creates a new Invoices'). It is front-loaded with purpose but includes a misleading line, making it less concise than it could be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is incomplete: it mentions a non-existent parameter, does not explain the concept of manual holds, and lacks error details or prerequisites. Without an output schema, more description of the return object would be helpful. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description references a 'hold_type' parameter that is not present in the input schema, saying invoice_id is required if hold_type is 'invoice'. This contradicts the schema and could mislead agents. It does not add useful meaning beyond the schema; instead it adds confusion.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Create a manual hold for an invoice or vendor' which is clear, but then confusingly says 'Use this to create a new Invoices in Procore.' This inconsistency muddles the purpose. The title and input schema clarify it's for manual holds, but the description itself is not fully coherent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_manual_holds or update_a_manual_hold. The description only mentions required parameters and endpoint, no usage context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.